Mickey Conley v. Bob Holden

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: September 21, 2004
• Docket: 03-3908
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 03-3908 ___________

Mickey Conley, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Bob Holden; Gary Kempker; Dave * Dormire; Arthur Woods; Canteen * [UNPUBLISHED] Appratus of MSP; Missouri Department * of Corrections; Missouri Department of * Corrections and Human Resources, * Treasury Department; Sgt. L. * Weatherford; Sgt. W. Green; Sgt. B. * Durbin; Sgt. Campbell; David Corun; * Richard Corne; CO I Wood; Cynthia * Wright; CO I R. Able; R. Young; CO I * Friesen; D. Edwards; Charles Turner, * Functional Unit Manager; Caseworker * Bainbridge; Caseworker Jones; * Caseworker Verdugo; CO I Stewart; * Caseworker Webster; Tonya Kempker, * Unit Manager; Caseworker Joan Prader; * Michael Bowersox; Sondra Booker; * Paul McPhetters; Caseworker * Winchester; Caseworker Williams; * CO II David Terry; CO I Jerry * Cornelison; Nurse Andrea; Carolyn * Jrizzle; Jacquez Lamar; Palmer, * Chronic Care; Jeff Thurston, Medical * Administrator; Teresa Bradely; Nurse * Helen; Angie Wright; Pam Tagg; Bill * Galloway; Mark Schreiber; Sgt. King; * Sgt. Dittman; Donald Owens; CO * Collego, * * Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: September 7, 2004 Filed: September 21, 2004 ___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Mickey Conley appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming denial of access to the courts. After Conley was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an initial partial filing fee was assessed against him, and he was informed his case might be dismissed if he failed to pay the fee. Because he never paid the fee, the district court dismissed the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order.

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal. See In re Reid, 197 F.3d 318, 320 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review; court may dismiss case for failure to comply with its orders).

Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

-2-